Airbus A380 safety test injures 33

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Safety Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the safety test of the Airbus A380, which resulted in injuries to 33 participants during an evacuation drill. The conversation explores the implications of the test results, the safety of the aircraft, and comparisons to other aircraft and historical structures, with a focus on emergency evacuation procedures and the potential risks associated with large passenger numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while injuries occurred during the test, the evacuation time exceeded requirements, suggesting the ramps served their purpose despite the injuries.
  • Others question the necessity of the injuries in a test scenario, pondering whether such risks were justified.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of the A380, with some expressing a lack of confidence in its ability to safely carry 1,000 passengers.
  • Some argue that larger aircraft can be just as safe as smaller ones, citing advancements in technology and engineering.
  • Comparisons are made between the A380's evacuation capabilities and historical examples, such as the Colosseum, although some participants challenge the relevance of these comparisons.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of a potential crash involving a large number of passengers and how it might affect public perception of the aircraft's safety.
  • Some participants assert that air travel remains safer than car travel, even for larger aircraft like the A380.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions regarding the safety of the A380 and the implications of the evacuation test. There is no consensus on whether the test was justified or whether the aircraft is safe, indicating multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of safety, assumptions about emergency scenarios, and the impact of public perception on aircraft design and certification.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in aviation safety, emergency procedures, and the engineering challenges associated with large aircraft may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down


but in general i don't see how it would be any less safe than any other jetliner, since all objects fall at the same rate of time

the only downfall of a larger jetliner would probably be the whacko kamakaze pilot who takes one over
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
imperium2600 said:
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
We've got one. The FAA requirement for the number of hail balls, ice slabs and bird ingestions per attempt is a function of fan diameter. Most of our engines are sized that they have to withstand a single, 4 lbm bird with no appreciable loss in thrust performance. Something along the size of what the A380 uses should have to withstand 3 simultaneous impacts, but I would have to check the FARs to be certain. The speed of the shot is also a variable.

That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.
 
  • #34
FredGarvin said:
That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.


And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
 
  • #35
brewnog said:
And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
That one's older than the hills. I've heard a bunch of different versions.
 
  • #36
FredGarvin said:
That one's older than the hills. I've heard a bunch of different versions.


Hah, thought it must be too good to be true! Still, as far as urban legends go, it's a nice one to believe and ponder about!
 
  • #37
It's flying from the South West to Heathrow today :cool:
 
  • #38
imperium2600 said:
but in general i don't see how it would be any less safe than any other jetliner, since all objects fall at the same rate of time
So a plane falls at the same rate as a feather?
 
  • #39
dav2008 said:
So a plane falls at the same rate as a feather?
It's strange that people use parachutes, when it must be just as safe to stay in the plane... :-p